Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[TemplarKormac]

72 pages and not one post by the gun grabbers addressing the Ops question.

Thanks for pointing that out, gunnery sergeant. For liberals, I'll give you a fish. It would be nice to see a direct answer. Of course there isn't one that makes sense, which is why they evade the question or just assume that laws will work.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

Instituting more gun laws is like squeezing water from a stone. Going after the criminal himself however...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anyone who has to state he has won an argument hasn't.

The CDC Stopped funding it because the NRA and gun manufacturers didn't want people to know how dangerous guns were and don't do what they promise.

The NRA had nothing to do with it. They failed in lobbying to get him defunded. So why are you lying again?

Seeing how there are less then 800 accidental shootings a year I would suggest his data is simply wrong.

That much is a given, Gunny. I thoroughly debunked him this morning... yet he still lies in spite of the reality set before him.

 

[JoeB131]

The NRA had nothing to do with it. They failed in lobbying to get him defunded. So why are you lying again?

Seeing how there are less then 800 accidental shootings a year I would suggest his data is simply wrong.

That much is a given, Gunny. I thoroughly debunked him this morning... yet he still lies in spite of the reality set before him.

Guy, you haven't debunked one thing.

All you've proven is you are a couch potato who regurgitates whatever shit you read on line from the NRA.

Incidently, I posted the 800 accidential death figure. That's not even in dispute.

But combine that with 19,500 suicides and 11,101 murders, and frankly, that's too many gun deaths for no good reason.

The costs outweigh the benefits. Period.

 

[JoeB131]

[



I don't need a reason Joe. That's the way free society works. Deal with it.

No, guy, free societies work PERFECTLY FINE without guns.

The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and France have all proven this.

The problem is you think you sit their with your largely useless gun and cower in fear of your neighbors and government... living in fear isn't freedom.

[

Oh I get it. it's okay for you to consume meat because you have someone else kill it. It's not okay for me to eat meat that I have killed myself. Yeah, that makes complete sense.

No, if you kill an animal because that's your job, you are just like every other working stiff in the world, doing something you'd rather not do because they are paying you to do it.

If you kill an animal because you get your rocks off doing it, that kind of makes you a sadist.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[



I don't need a reason Joe. That's the way free society works. Deal with it.

No, guy, free societies work PERFECTLY FINE without guns.

The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and France have all proven this.

The problem is you think you sit their with your largely useless gun and cower in fear of your neighbors and government... living in fear isn't freedom.

[

Oh I get it. it's okay for you to consume meat because you have someone else kill it. It's not okay for me to eat meat that I have killed myself. Yeah, that makes complete sense.

No, if you kill an animal because that's your job, you are just like every other working stiff in the world, doing something you'd rather not do because they are paying you to do it.

If you kill an animal because you get your rocks off doing it, that kind of makes you a sadist.

And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.

Or-

1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.

2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.

3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.

4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.

Done.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.

Or-

1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.

2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.

3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.

4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.

Done.

In other words we violate the law and the Constitution cause you KNOW a majority does not support your ignorance. Got it.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.

Or-

1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.

2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.

3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.

4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.

Done.

In other words we violate the law and the Constitution cause you KNOW a majority does not support your ignorance. Got it.

I think it's a matter of INTERPRETATION, isn't it.

In Miller v. US, the INTERPRETATION was that the second was about Militias.

Heller found it to be an "individual" right. Unless the individual wanted a Howitzer or a Stinger missile or some shit like that. Then not so much. Scalia did a bunch of handstands that weren't very convincing.

Scalia has a heart attack, and guess what, it's about "Militias" again.

The other three are matters of regulation and commerce and taxes, no "rights" issue involved.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Or-

1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.

2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.

3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.

4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.

Done.

In other words we violate the law and the Constitution cause you KNOW a majority does not support your ignorance. Got it.

I think it's a matter of INTERPRETATION, isn't it.

In Miller v. US, the INTERPRETATION was that the second was about Militias.

Heller found it to be an "individual" right. Unless the individual wanted a Howitzer or a Stinger missile or some shit like that. Then not so much. Scalia did a bunch of handstands that weren't very convincing.

Scalia has a heart attack, and guess what, it's about "Militias" again.

The other three are matters of regulation and commerce and taxes, no "rights" issue involved.

In Miller it was NOT an interpretation that it was about Militias, it was that in order for a weapon to be protected it had to be of use to the Military. You don't even know what you are babbling about.

 

[Care4all]

I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...

who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?

 

[JoeB131]

[

In Miller it was NOT an interpretation that it was about Militias, it was that in order for a weapon to be protected it had to be of use to the Military. You don't even know what you are babbling about.

Actually, it did a LOT more than that. It allowed governments (federal, state and local) to declare entire classes of weapons illegal and entire groups people inelligable to own weapons.

In short- Well Regulated Militia.

 

[Bern80]

[

And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.

Or-

1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.

2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.

3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.

4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.

Done.

1) Accept it's not about just militias. The people who wrote it said so. Go back and read the federalist papers citations I posted.

2) Actually no, we don't go after ford when someone kills a family driving drunk in their Focus.

3) Statistically we should all be more concerned about you and the damage you'll cause with your car even though you do have insurance and licensing.

4) You can not tax rights.

0 for 4. Try again.

 

[Geaux4it]

I wish 2 things. One is that those poor folks in New York could of had a gun against the bikers. Second, wish I was in that car because I would of had a gun and blew their heads off

-Geaux

 

[Bern80]

I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...

who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?

Wow! A semi-rationale answer. Joe? Are you taking notes?

 

[Geaux4it]

I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...

who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?

Many are stolen

-Geaux

 

[Bern80]

No, guy, free societies work PERFECTLY FINE without guns.

The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and France have all proven this.

The problem is you think you sit their with your largely useless gun and cower in fear of your neighbors and government... living in fear isn't freedom.

And the evidence is that our free society works 'perfectly fine' with guns. They are statistically no more dangerous than several other inanimate objects and less so in many cases.

No, if you kill an animal because that's your job, you are just like every other working stiff in the world, doing something you'd rather not do because they are paying you to do it.

If you kill an animal because you get your rocks off doing it, that kind of makes you a sadist.

I hunt because I would rather know where what I'm eating comes from. I would rather know it's not chemically treated. I'd rather know they were not only treated humanely, but lived relatively free of human interaction most of their lives. The reality is Joe you're a hypocrite. Someone who condems hunting, but eats meat, claiming hunting for meat is less humane than getting from a fast food joint or grocery store. That's as about as ridiculous, illogical argument as I've heard in a long time.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.

Or-

1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.

2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.

3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.

4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.

Done.

1) Accept it's not about just militias. The people who wrote it said so. Go back and read the federalist papers citations I posted.

2) Actually no, we don't go after ford when someone kills a family driving drunk in their Focus.

3) Statistically we should all be more concerned about you and the damage you'll cause with your car even though you do have insurance and licensing.

4) You can not tax rights.

0 for 4. Try again.

1) Who gives a fuck what the Slave-Rapists who wrote it thought. It's what WE think it is now that matters. This original intent bullshit doesn't fly with me.

When gangsters were shooting eachother with Tommy Guns and Sawed off shotguns during prohibition, they didn't say, "Well, what would Tommy Jefferson do when he was done raping Sally Hemmings?" They banned the shit out of that stuff.

2) Ford doesn't go around marketting their product to drunk drivers and that crazy lady who try to ram the White House YEsterday. The Gun Industry does. A better comparison would be the Tobacco industry, which WAS found liable when it was realized they marketted their products to children and spiked them to make them more addictive. The gun industry is marketting to the Nancy Lanzas of the world, resisting any background checks, and making guns more deadly to appeal to the tiny penis crowd.

3) Statistically, no, guns are more dangerous, because unilke a car, they are designed to kill people.

4) We can tax whatever the fuck we want, and there are no "rights". Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942". It can't be a right if it can be taken away from you.

What we have are privilages that the rest of society lets you have. If you abuse the privilage, you lose it. As far as I'm concerned, the gun nuts lost the privilage the minute nutjobs engaged in mass shootings, and they resisted ANY attempts to tighten background checks.

4)

 

[JoeB131]

I wish 2 things. One is that those poor folks in New York could of had a gun against the bikers. Second, wish I was in that car because I would of had a gun and blew their heads off

-Geaux

So even though no one was killed in this incident where the driver was just as at fault as the bikers (he did run over one of them), you would hope that someone had a gun so that we could have taken what was a simple assault and jack it up to murder.

Brilliant!

You see why I'd like to see people like you disarmed now?

 

[Geaux4it]

I wish 2 things. One is that those poor folks in New York could of had a gun against the bikers. Second, wish I was in that car because I would of had a gun and blew their heads off

-Geaux

So even though no one was killed in this incident where the driver was just as at fault as the bikers (he did run over one of them), you would hope that someone had a gun so that we could have taken what was a simple assault and jack it up to murder.

Brilliant!

You see why I'd like to see people like you disarmed now?

I never 'see' anything you spew. And what you would like to see will never happen in this country.

Your not very smart are you?

If a driver shot the person smashing the window in with his family in the car, it would not have been murder

Self defense

 

[JoeB131]

I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...

who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?

Wow! A semi-rationale answer. Joe? Are you taking notes?

Care4All is a nice lady, but she is on the wrong track.

First, in the case of the mass shooters - Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis - they didn't need a "black market" to get the weapons they used to murder nearly 100 people between the five of them.

Similarly, most of the 32K gun suicides, murders and accidents are committed with legally acquired guns, usually someone who had no business having a gun to start with.

Second, there wouldn't be a "black market" if there wasn't a white market of people with no background checks. That means there are plenty of straw buyers and plenty of guns that are easy to steal.